While Assailing The Assessment Order Before The 2[Nd] Respondent,Petitioner Has Sought To Canvass That The Judgment Of The Supreme Court Inmavilayi Service Co-O v. Commissioner Of Incometax; 2021 (1) Klt 485 Now Governs The Field Thereby Rendering The Assessmentitself As Incorrect

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 20 DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1893 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KOPPAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UNNIKRISHNAN T.P .AGED 56 YEARSNO.F.1205, PULASSERI PO, KOPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKADREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UNNIKRISHNAN T.P ., PIN – 679307. BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHIASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 1100032THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHINATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JAWAHARLAL STADIUM, DELHI, PIN - 110003 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the KeralaCo-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against thepetitioner. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that petitionersatisfied the ingredients of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplatedunder the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2. While assailing the assessment order before the 2[nd] respondent,petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court inMavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of IncomeTax; 2021 (1) KLT 485 now governs the field thereby rendering the assessmentitself as incorrect. 3.Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 alongwith Ext.P3 stay petition and the same are pending consideration before the 2[nd]respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to consider the appeal in a time bound manner. 4.Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to considerand pass appropriate orders on Exts.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at anyrate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thisjudgment. 5. Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiatedagainst the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-GOPINATH P. JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1893/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE FOR AY 2020-21 DATED 24-8-2022 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENTAY 2020-21 DATED 24-8-2022 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR AY 2020-21 DATED 22-9-2022 SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENTDATED 22-9-2022 SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22-9-2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENTSUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT